Over on the Big Purple, Calithena had this to say about gaming:

[/I]
This rather surprised me. From the context we see that he was not joking.

I also think of the old argument about how GMs often require players to describe their characters' social interactions even when the character has skill in diplomacy, intimidation, seduction, etc. "But you don't get them to describe swinging their sword..."

Now, what I reckon is that is that roleplaying is a social creative hobby. Complaining that to be a good roleplaying gamer you have to have some brains and creativity is like complaining that footballers have to be fit and agile or that writers have to be literate.  

What do you lot reckon?

That isn't in context at all Kyle. Playing the system was what he was talking about, min-maxing and optimisation. Having the brains and knowledge to play the system, rather than the game.

Quote from: Kyle AaronOver on the Big Purple, Calithena had this to say about gaming:

"I find the development towards requiring actual intelligence and skill to play RPGs distasteful."

[/I]
This rather surprised me. From the context we see that he was not joking.

You neglected to include this part:

QuoteThis is connected to a second rant about how RPGs are increasingly designed for people with a certain level of intelligence. Any idiot who wanted to could play old D&D; the stuff about RPGs being for intelligent people was BS. (Though I do think that being more imaginative makes them more fun, but intelligent and imaginative are not at all the same thing.)

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhat do you lot reckon?

I reckon that you may have missed his point.  From the thread as it has developed so far it seems that Calithena was talking about the trend to make the optimization of character building and specific tactical choices as a "game within a game" that tends to serve as a barrier to entry.

In that case, I kind of agree with him.  


TGA

He was very specific, saying "RPGs are increasingly designed for people with a certain level of intelligence."

In any case, this is not really about what Calithena did or didn't say. It's about the general question, "should we need brains to play rpgs?" Whether Calithena was or wasn't saying that doesn't really matter. It was just a spark to the conversation. This is like, "Einstein said X. Do you agree with X?" "But Einstein didn't really say..." Who gives a shit? Do you agree with X? Stick to the fucking point.

Now answer the fucking question! Should we need brains to play rpgs?

Well, as you have taken this out of context, the question is pointless unless you clarify it. Are you asking a very general question about needing a brain to play games (duh) or are you asking about the real point of the linked thread that you need a certain type of 'intelligence' to game the system in order to gain mechanical advantage rather than using ingenuity in-game to do so?

The answer is yes.

Quote from: Kyle AaronOver on the Big Purple, Calithena had this to say about gaming:

"I find the development towards requiring actual intelligence and skill to play RPGs distasteful."

[/I]
This rather surprised me. From the context we see that he was not joking.

That's a shame, because what he said is kind of funny. There's always been a healthy seam of RPGs that require intelligence and skill to play, from Gygaxian D&D to Rolemaster to Call of Cthulhu to D&D 3.X.

QuoteI also think of the old argument about how GMs often require players to describe their characters' social interactions even when the character has skill in diplomacy, intimidation, seduction, etc. "But you don't get them to describe swinging their sword..."

Now, what I reckon is that is that roleplaying is a social creative hobby. Complaining that to be a good roleplaying gamer you have to have some brains and creativity is like complaining that footballers have to be fit and agile or that writers have to be literate.  

What do you lot reckon?

It's all about what the group decides to abstract out and/or leave to the system. Most games which aren't LARPs choose to abstract out combat, and provide nice combat systems so that you don't have to actually hit the DM. The social interactions thing is a conflict over whether or not social interactions should be abstracted out; it's exacerbated by the fact that many systems have next-to-no system support for social interaction, so abstracting it out isn't as easy.

And then, of course, once you start abstracting out the actual process of talking to people or whacking them with swords, the temptation is to abstract out the tactical elements of that part of the game too - Wushu is the epitome of this approach, where it makes absolutely no tactical difference whatsoever how you approach the problem.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIn any case, this is not really about what Calithena did or didn't say.

Then why did you bring it up?  You even decided to put it in big-ass colored letters.  Seems odd to do that if it wasn't about what Calithena did or didn't say.  If it has no bearing on your point, it is a sloppy question, at best.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt's about the general question, "should we need brains to play rpgs?" Whether Calithena was or wasn't saying that doesn't really matter. It was just a spark to the conversation. This is like, "Einstein said X. Do you agree with X?" "But Einstein didn't really say..." Who gives a shit? Do you agree with X? Stick to the fucking point.

I imagine that the OP would give a shit if someone was misrepresenting their position, but I can't speak for Calithena on that point.  As for me, I think that any discussion based on misrepresentation or sloppiness is off to a bad start.

Quote from: Kyle AaronNow answer the fucking question! Should we need brains to play rpgs?

IMO it is certainly advantageous to have brains, but to say that you have to have a certain IQ to enjoy the hobby smacks of elitism.


TGA

I think I agree with Calithena.  I also think that your question about "brains" has no immediately perceptible relation to Cal's statement.

Quote from: Kyle AaronNow answer the fucking question! Should we need brains to play rpgs?

Should we need Gleemax? Is that the question?

(Ok, couldn't resist...)

Quote from: Kyle AaronNow answer the fucking question! Should we need brains to play rpgs?

I don't know about your game or anyone else's, but yeah in my game you'd better come equipped. I'm not looking for high melodrama, or a new theory of relativity, but I am looking for participation.

Oh for fuck's sakes. You guys really are retarded sometimes. This is a discussion board. Are you here to have a discussion, or not? If you just want to pick nits, go make love to a gorilla.

That fucking genius Shamus Young was talking about this sort of stuff a while back, the way you guys post.
   
I can imagine if people acted this way in real life:

       Me: Man, It's freezing today.

    Them: Actually, it's well above freezing. It's forty-two degrees.

    Me: What I'm saying is that it's cold. It's been raining all day.

    Them: No it hasn't. If you were paying attention you would know it didn't begin raining until mid-morning.

    Me: Look, all I'm trying to convey is that it's unexpectedly cold and rainy, and that I'm uncomfortable.

    Them: It's not unexpected at all. Aren't you aware of stuff like weather reports? Duh. Besides, this weather fits well within the norms for this time of year.

    Me: Okay, how about this: For the last week it has been unnaturally warm. I grew used to the warm weather. Then it suddenly stopped being so warm. This led to me feeling cold. Happy now?

    Them: Actually it wasn't "sudden". It took several hours for the temperature to reach its current - Ack! Stop choking me!

Normal people understand my opening line to be an expression of discomfort, but a nitpicker sees it as some sort of personal challenge. Instead of saying "I'm not particularly cold", the nitpicker decides to try and prove me wrong by misunderstanding everything I say, leading to an endless chain of corrections. It's like having a conversation with Commander Data from Star Trek, only if he was a complete jerk.

It's a really fucking simple question. It's in the title and everything. "Should we need brains to play rpgs?" Should we design them for retards and dull and boring people?

See? Paul could answer the question, and he's been hit in the head heaps of times. Why is so hard for you lot?

Quote from: Serious PaulI don't know about your game or anyone else's, but yeah in my game you'd better come equipped. I'm not looking for high melodrama, or a new theory of relativity, but I am looking for participation.

Yep, me too. Just some basic participation, an idea or two, some very very basic tactics, social skills and sneakiness. You must have a clue.

Quote from: Serious PaulI don't know about your game or anyone else's, but yeah in my game you'd better come equipped. I'm not looking for high melodrama, or a new theory of relativity, but I am looking for participation.

Yes, it doesn't take a genius to meaningfully participate, but it does take a some smarts and a pinch of extroversion.

As for requiring smarts to get the most out of a game's rules? I do think that sucks a little. I also think it's been a part of gaming since the beginning. RPGs came from wargames, which have always benefitted those with the brains to master the rules.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt's a really fucking simple question. It's in the title and everything. "Should we need brains to play rpgs?" Should we design them for retards and dull and boring people?

Quit being a douchebag, Kyle.  Calithena made a distinction between the unimaginative and the unintelligent that I think is important.  You're ignoring it.  Why?

You've argued in the past gaming is a social activity first and foremost.  Do you ever socialize with stupid people?  Are you friends with an airhead?  Would you invite them to your game?  If not, why not?

Personally, I think D&D has done a disservice to the hobby by progressively making it harder for a player of average intelligence and dedication to grok the rules.  Some days it seems like the present system was designed for Rain Man-level idiot savants.

Quote from: jrientsYou've argued in the past gaming is a social activity first and foremost.  Do you ever socialize with stupid people?  Are you friends with an airhead?  Would you invite them to your game?  If not, why not?

Depends on what you mean by "stupid." If you just mean uneducated, then sure. If you mean, "never comes up with any decent ideas and has to have everything explained to them fifty times and still doesn't get it," then no, I don't socialise with stupid people.

I meet new would-be players socially first and have a chat with them. If they can't have an interesting and friendly conversation with me, then I don't invite them to the game session. No, I don't socialise or game with people who bore me. Why should I? I can be bored on my own, I don't need to invite a bunch of geeks around and clean up after them.

it's not like I have super-high standards. They don't have to have the brightness of a mental gymnast, the wit of Robin Williams, and the charm of George Clooney. Just a bit of personality, a bit of life, and in terms of brains - be reasonably switched-on.